Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34588718›Full record

ArticleActa clinica Croatica2021

PROGNOSTIC FACTORS FOR VULVAR CANCER.

Ivana Miljanović-Špika, Maja Drežnjak Madunić, Zlatko Topolovec, Dajana Kujadin Kenjereš, Domagoj Vidosavljević

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta clinica Croatica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06007625 (Vulvar Cancer Individualized Scoring System), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06007625 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Vulvar Cancer Individualized Scoring System

TypeobservationalSponsorAssiut UniversityRan2024 to 2024Enrolled1,000ConditionsVulvar CancerArmsMachine learning-based prediction model
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ivana Miljanović-Špika1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Osijek, Croatia; 2Osijek University Hospital Center, Osijek, Croatia; 3Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vukovar General Hospital, Vukovar, Croatia; 4Department of Internal Medicine, Vukovar General Hospital, Vukovar, Croatia.
Maja Drežnjak Madunić1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Osijek, Croatia; 2Osijek University Hospital Center, Osijek, Croatia; 3Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vukovar General Hospital, Vukovar, Croatia; 4Department of Internal Medicine, Vukovar General Hospital, Vukovar, Croatia.
Zlatko Topolovec1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Osijek, Croatia; 2Osijek University Hospital Center, Osijek, Croatia; 3Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vukovar General Hospital, Vukovar, Croatia; 4Department of Internal Medicine, Vukovar General Hospital, Vukovar, Croatia.
Dajana Kujadin Kenjereš1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Osijek, Croatia; 2Osijek University Hospital Center, Osijek, Croatia; 3Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vukovar General Hospital, Vukovar, Croatia; 4Department of Internal Medicine, Vukovar General Hospital, Vukovar, Croatia.
Domagoj Vidosavljević1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Osijek, Croatia; 2Osijek University Hospital Center, Osijek, Croatia; 3Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vukovar General Hospital, Vukovar, Croatia; 4Department of Internal Medicine, Vukovar General Hospital, Vukovar, Croatia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this retrospective study was to show the effect of clinical, pathologic, cytologic and therapeutic prognostic factors on treatment outcome and survival of patients suffering from vulvar cancer and to determine prognostic significance of each of the individual factors, their mutual significance and impact on survival. The study included patients treated for vulvar cancer at Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Osijek University Hospital Centre during the 2000-2011 period. Retrospective analysis included data from patient medical files, along with their pathologic and cytologic findings, and oncologist findings. The study included 59 patients aged 45 to 88 years. Diagnosis was based on pathologic and cytologic status and staging. Univariate analysis showed the lymph node status, adjuvant radiotherapy, chemotherapy and clinical staging of the disease to be statistically significant prognostic factors for overall survival and prognosis of vulvar cancer patients. Multivariate analysis of independent prognostic factors for survival of vulvar cancer patients yielded lymph node status, adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy as positive prognostic factors.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Squamous CellVulvar NeoplasmsFemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionNeoplasm StagingPrognosisRetrospective StudiesCancerChemotherapyStagingSurvivalVulva

Identifiers

PMID34588718
PMCPMC8305353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.